Struggling with IPA in your PhD? Here's what you need to know
So, you’ve discovered Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA)… and your brain is buzzing.
Maybe you’ve read my IPA for Beginners blogpost and things finally clicked. But now you’ve got new questions creeping in:
“What do I do with all this data?”
“Can I really interpret people’s experiences without getting it wrong?”
“How do I know if I’m doing IPA properly?”
If any of that sounds familiar, you’re in exactly the right place.
(1) “I’ve collected my data. Now what?”
There’s often this beautiful moment of euphoria when you finish collecting your data. You’ve saved your transcripts. You’ve done the interviews. You sit back and think: I’ve done it!
But then the panic hits.
“How do I actually analyse this?!”
This is normal. And no, you don’t need to be skipping into your analysis singing musical numbers.
Here’s what you need to know: IPA is not about following a rigid formula. It’s about deeply understanding lived experience.
And it’s iterative, meaning you don’t do it all in one go. You go back and forth. You read, reflect, refine. Then do it all again, a bit differently.
Start by sitting with the data. Re-read your transcripts. Make notes in the margins. Circle things. Scribble questions. Let the richness of it soak in.
Look for:
Descriptive comments – What’s happening here?
Linguistic comments – How are they talking about it?
Conceptual comments – What might this mean on a deeper level?
You’re not rushing to code. You’re dwelling. This is slow work, and that’s the point.
(2) “How do I find themes without losing the individual voices?”
This is one of the trickiest bits of IPA: building themes while still honouring your participants' unique experiences.
The answer? Case-by-case first. Always.
Start with one participant. Spend a few days with just their transcript. Make notes, find patterns, and group your emerging ideas. Summarise this in a case profile, just for that person.
Only once you’ve done this for every participant do you start to look across cases for shared themes.
But here’s the secret: You’re not trying to erase differences. You’re showing how patterns exist alongside complexity. The variation is part of the insight.
(3) “What if my participants are already interpreting their own experience?”
This is where IPA gets juicy.
Participants do interpret their own experiences. And that’s not a problem, it’s the method.
You’re engaging in a double hermeneutic: You’re making sense of them making sense of their world.
Your job isn’t to “correct” them. It’s to:
Understand what they’re trying to express
Consider how their meaning is shaped by identity, context, or culture
Reflect on how your own lens influences your interpretation
You’re not hunting for objective truth. You’re looking for situated meaning. And that’s what makes IPA so powerful.
Reflexivity is crucial here, and no, it’s not the same as just “being reflective.” (I’ve got another blog on that linked here if you want to dive deeper.)
(4) “I feel like I’m doing it wrong.”
This is the most common IPA panic of all.
Maybe you're wondering:
“Can I say I used IPA if I didn’t follow every step exactly?”
“What if I was informed by IPA but didn’t do a full analysis?”
Here’s the deal: You’re not being assessed on whether you ticked every IPA box. You’re being judged on whether your work is grounded, thoughtful, and honest.
If you’ve:
✅ Understood IPA’s philosophical roots
✅ Centred lived experience
✅ Engaged with your participants’ meaning-making
✅ Reflected on your own influence
✅ Explained what you did and why you did it
…then you are doing IPA. Even if it doesn’t look identical to someone else’s version.
And yes, it’s totally fine to say your study was “informed by IPA” if you adapted it to fit your research. Just be transparent.
There are no IPA police. But there are PhD examiners who appreciate clarity and honesty.
(5) “What else should I read?”
A few key places to start:
📚 Smith, Flowers & Larkin (2009) – Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, Method and Research (SAGE). This is the IPA book. Get a copy. You’ll come back to it over and over.
🔍 Other people’s IPA studies – Search “Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis” on Google Scholar. Find articles in your discipline. See how people apply and write up IPA in the wild.
Look for theses, case studies, and published papers. Take note of how they describe their process, this will really help you write your own methods and findings chapters.
Final thoughts
IPA isn’t about getting it perfect. It’s about getting it meaningful.
So if you’re stuck in analysis paralysis, take a breath. Go back to the data. Trust the process.
You’re not just coding - you’re connecting. You’re not just interpreting - you’re opening a window into someone else’s lived world. That’s hard. That’s powerful. And it matters.
And if you’re craving more help with qualitative research generally, binge all of my blogposts on this topic by starting here. Just make sure you have snacks.